Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 1

Primary assertion of source of membership

I think that one thing missing here is the very critical assertion that MGTOW is a phenomenon, and not a subscription based group. More specifically, that MGTOW is more of a label that falls naturally upon anyone who meets its description.

In other words, that most MGTOWs in the wild do not actually know about the label, but they fall under its definition anyway, because MGTOW is not a movement, but a lifestyle. Following this assertion, it is critical to prominently highlight the facts that:

• The majority of MGTOWs who exist in the real world do not know that the label "MGTOW" exists.
• These unknowing-MGTOWs still, without intending to, contribute to the desired end-effect of the MGTOW aspiration.
• Consequently, the pool from which the knowing-MGTOW community draws its members is both large and un-measurable, and more importantly, exponentially growing by the day.

Every time a middle-aged man is burned by the divorce courts and decides to never remarry, or every young man who decides to play the field and remain an eternal bachelor; small nondescript men, and great men like Bill Maher: these are all MGTOWs, and that is another aspect of the recruitment pool for MGTOW: it is limitless, and men only become increasingly susceptible to it as they grow in age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomnompuffs (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, here are several quotes from the Daubney article that state precisely this (feel free to add these as additional citations):

• " Sandman is a 36-year-old photographer based in Toronto, Canada, and has more than 40,000 YouTube subscribers. “MGTOW is already massive and has tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of men around the world,” he claims. “They just don’t know they are going their own way, and that the term or online community exists.” "
• " Yet what amazed me most while researching this article was that every time I explained the MGTOW concept to a friend, they all knew one — they just didn’t know they were called MGTOWs. One woman said: “I’ve got a male mate, a good-looking, well-paid accountant. He’s athletic, a good catch, but he’s given up on women. He reads about false-rape cases and he thinks sex isn’t worth the hassle.” "

—MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight^(talk). 22:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

MGTOW does not have "goals", as it is not a political movement. (Of course, individual MGTOW can have personal goals in their personal lives.) I moved your edits here: (—MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight^(talk). 23:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC))

"MGTOW draws its strength from the fact that is not a formal movement that can be targeted or numbered; rather it is an aspiration and a lifestyle which can be lived and promoted even unintentionally: the goals of the "knowing" MGTOW members are met when ordinary men, even unknowingly, perform a simple Cost–benefit Analysis of marriage, and then undertake a strategy of avoiding marriage as their Risk Management plan. When such "un-knowing" MGTOW men discover the MGTOW community, it only enhances their lives by providing them with a framework, a set of ideologies, a source of advice from experienced "knowing" MGTOWs, and a formal recognition of unbalanced Gynocentrism as a problem. Both types of men further the end goals of MGTOW regardless.

Perhaps the dividing line between marriage strike movements of various kinds, and the MGTOW community is that MGTOWs have a formal understanding that Gynocentrism is the underlying problem that they are striking against, and so they have a different definition of what their end-goals, and measures of progress are. That is, the MGTOW aspiration is distinguished by the acceptance of not only the disproportionately hostile legal environment which works against mens' interests, but also the accompanying understanding that the problem is not the laws, but unbalanced Gynocentrism as a whole."

If I remove the portion about "Goals and measures of progress", and speak only about acceptance of Gynocentrism vs only acknowledging the hostile legal climate, would that suffice? Specifically, I am thinking of modifying the second paragraph of my edit to speak about "ideological antitheses" instead of "goals" as follows:

"Perhaps the distinguishing line between "marriage strike" movements of various kinds, and the MGTOW community is that MGTOWs have a formal understanding that Gynocentrism is the underlying problem that they are against, and so they have a different definition of what their ideological antitheses are. On the other hand, other movements stop short, and see the problem only at the level of the disproportionately hostile legal environment which works against mens' interests." Nomnompuffs (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'll change the first line of the first paragraph of my change to be as follows:

the beginning of the criteria for MGTOW is met when ordinary men, even unknowingly, perform a simple Cost–benefit Analysis of marriage, and then undertake a strategy of avoiding marriage as their Risk Management plan. Nomnompuffs (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The most important work this article needs is adding citations to existing contents, not adding new contents. Otherwise, other people will keep butchering the present contents. With that said, here is a some constructive criticism:

• "MGTOW draws its strength", "it only enhances their lives": biased and non-NPOV.
• "rather it is .... a lifestyle", "which can be lived ... even unintentionally", "Cost–benefit Analysis of marriage... Risk Management plan", "Gynocentrism": the article already mentions these things.
• "Perhaps the distinguishing line between "marriage strike" movements of various kinds, and the MGTOW community": the marriage strike is a core component of the MGTOW phenomenon/community.
• "by providing them with a framework, a set of ideologies, a source of advice from experienced "knowing" MGTOWs": original research? Also keep in mind if you can find a reliable source for your claims.

Whatever you choose to do, this contents does not belong in the "Definition" section, which I believe is presently good enough as it is. I also suggest to avoid using the word "movement" entirely. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight^(talk). 23:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no problem: I'll leave off from attempting to over zealously modify, and be more centered on improving -- thanks Nomnompuffs (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Basic concepts

"One essential tenet of MGTOW is the avoidance of legal entanglements with women, including, at the very least, marriage, cohabitation, and procreation."

Way too many commas. I'm not sure what work "at the very least" is doing in this sentence, and procreation isn't a legal entanglement, it results in a legal entanglement.

"One essential tenet of MGTOW is the avoidance of legal entanglements with women. MGTOW avoid, at the very least, marriage, cohabitation, and procreation."

But this isn't a 'tenet' (a dogma, a presupposition) - it's a practical suggestion. In general, I find the focus on MGTOW as a "philosophy" out-of place. Is it actually true that MGTOW "uphold personal philosphy"? The only dogma in "avoid marriage" is "it is a good thing to be happy". MGTOW, then, is a modern variety of Epicurianism.

In any case, this:

" The MGTOW movement recommends avoiding legal entanglements with women. In particuar: marriage, cohabitation, and procreation."

Paul Murray (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is way too wordy, anyway. The marriage strike is not specifically a movement of men who uphold a personal philosophy. I say: whip out that bit. What is left is a definition, rather than exposition, and that's what you want on a lead paragraph.

Men Going Their Own Way (abbreviated MGTOW, pronounced /ˈmɪg.taʊ/), sometimes also called the marriage strike, the marriage boycott, or the sexodus, is a worldwide social phenomenon and community of heterosexual men who choose a lifestyle which avoids legal and romantic entanglements with women. A participant in MGTOW is called a Man Going His Own Way (abbreviated MGHOW, pronounced /ˈmɪg.haʊ/). In Japan, MGTOW are known as herbivore men or grass-eater men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Murray (talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

MGTOW in many cases goes above and beyond avoiding entanglements. That would make MGTOW simply synonymous with "bachelor", but English already has a perfectly good word for "bachelor". MGTOW is about anti-gynocentrism. In addition to avoiding entanglements, MGTOW also may involve: not financially providing for women, not protecting women from criticism, not protecting women from danger, not helping women out with favors and chores, not emotionally supporting women ("emotional tampon"), not dying for women in wars, etc. Therefore, in the lede, I wanted to introduce and distinguish the "MGTOW philosophy" from the "MGTOW lifestyle". —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight^(talk). 09:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms of MGTOW

How can a valid criticism of MGTOW be that it doesn't concern itself with women? It's "MEN" going their own way, nor it is some sort of social advocacy group that concerns itself with the plight of anyone. It's a lifestyle a very hard to define life style that mostly consists of men who think the current social system is not in their favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.123.177 (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

To whom are you addressing? Who raised that complaint here? Because it appears you are just setting up a strawman in order to knock it down. This is not a forum. Marteau (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)